A treatment trade-off based decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Willingness of patients with cancer pain to participate in end-of-life decisions: a multi-center cross-sectional study from three coastal provinces in southern China

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patients' intention for participation in end-of-life decisions (EOLD) in three coastal provinces in southern China. This study aimed to explore the willingness of patients with cancer pain to participate in EOLD and potential influencing factors.

METHODS

A multi-center cross-sectional study was performed in three coastal provinces in southern China. Two hundred and thirty patients with cancer pain were recruited and consented to fill out the questionnaires. The patients' willingness to participate in EOLD, demographic and disease-related data was surveyed.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients completed and returned the survey (response rate = 96.95%). One hundred four cases (46.64%) were willing to participate in EOLD. 119 (54.36%) cases not willing to participate in EOLD, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis shows that educational level (OR: 0.683, 95% CI: 0.482-0.966), history of alcoholism (OR: 8.353, 95%CI: 2.535-27.525), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (OR: 0.645, 95% CI: 0.450-0.925) and experience of explosive pain (OR: 6.367, 95% CI: 3.103-13.062) and clinical rescue (OR: 3.844, 95% CI: 1.722-8.577) had significant effects on EOLD intention (P <  0.05). Finally, a predictive model combined above five factors was established, which showed a good discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.849, 95% CI: 0.796-0.899, P <  0.001) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow Test: Chi-square = 10.103, P = 0.258) for which patients more willing to participate in EOLD.

CONCLUSIONS

The willingness of patients with cancer pain to participate in EOLD is at a modest level in three coastal provinces in southern China. Patients with lower educational level, history of alcoholism, better health status and experience of explosive pain and clinical rescue may be more prone to participate in EOLD.

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from February 23, 2015, to September 28, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from July 19, 2019, to April 22, 2020. A cohort of 76 patients with NSCLC seen at diagnosis or disease progression and a retrospective cohort of 157 patients treated before the trial were included. Adherence to 6 NCCN recommendations were evaluated: (1) smoking cessation counseling, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage IB to IIB NSCLC after surgery, (3) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before surgery, (4) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before nonsurgical treatment, (5) definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC not having surgery, and (6) molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the rates of guideline concordance between the prospective and retrospective cohorts. Secondary end points included decisional conflict and satisfaction.

INTERVENTIONS

An online tool customizing the NCCN guidelines to patients' clinical and pathologic features was used during consultation, facilitated by a trained coordinator.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Concordance of practice with 6 NCCN treatment recommendations on NSCLC and patients' decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Of the 76 patients with NSCLC, 44 were men (57.9%), median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 41-87 years), and 59 patients (77.6%) had adenocarcinoma. In the retrospective cohort, 91 of 157 patients (58.0%) were men, median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR, 61-65 years), and 105 patients (66.9%) had adenocarcinoma. After the intervention, patients received more smoking cessation counseling (4 of 5 [80.0%] vs 1 of 24 [4.2%], P < .001) and less adjuvant chemotherapy (0 of 7 vs 7 of 11 [63.6%]; P = .012). There was no significant change in mutation testing of non-squamous cell stage IV disease (20 of 20 [100%] vs 48 of 57 [84.2%]; P = .10). There was no significant change in pathologic mediastinal staging or initial chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III disease. After consultation with the tool, decisional conflict scores improved by a median of 20 points (IQR, 3-34; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that exposure to the NCCN guidelines is associated with increased guideline-concordant care for 2 of 6 preselected recommendations and improvement in decisional conflict.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982459.

Shared Decision Making in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Patients with psoriasis face numerous treatment and self-management decisions. Shared decision making is a novel approach where patients' preferences and values are considered in cooperation with healthcare professionals before making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to explore what is illuminated in psoriasis research regarding shared decision making, and to estimate the effects of shared decision-making interventions in this context.

METHODS

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies were eligible for inclusion. We searched six electronic databases up to January 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria. The SPIDER framework was used to identify eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Narrative and thematic syntheses were utilized to identify prominent themes emerging from the data.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the review. Of these, we included 18 studies (19 papers) to describe what was illuminated with regard to shared decision making in psoriasis research. Four major themes emerged: interpersonal communication; exchange of competence and knowledge; different world view; and involvement and preference, organized under two analytical themes; "Co-creation of decisions" and "Organization of treatment and treatment needs". For shared decision-making effects, we included four controlled studies. These varied in scope and interventional length and showed limited use of shared decision making-specific outcome measures, reflecting the early stage of the literature. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-synthesis was not justified.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a need to strengthen the relationship between medical doctors and patients with psoriasis. The evident lack of knowledge about each other's competence and the lack of self-efficacy for both patients and providers challenges the basic principles of shared decision making. The effects of shared decision making in psoriasis are inconclusive, and more research appears necessary to determine the possible benefits of shared decision-making interventions.

Effects of Shared Decision Making on Distress and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is associated with significant distress, poor quality of life, and a median prognosis of less than one year. Benefits of shared decision making (SDM) have been described for multiple diseases, either by the use of decisions aids or as part of supportive care interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to summarize the effects of interventions facilitating SDM on distress and health care utilization among patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases. Studies were eligible when conducted in a population of patients with lung cancer, evaluated the effects of an intervention that facilitated SDM, and measured distress and/or health care utilization as outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies, detailed in 13 publications, were included: nine randomized trials and three retrospective cohort studies. All studies reported on a supportive care intervention facilitating SDM as part of their intervention. Eight studies described effects on distress, and eight studies measured effects on health care utilization. No effect was found in studies measuring generic distress. Positive effects, in favor of the intervention groups, were observed in studies using anxiety-specific measures (n = 1) or depression-specific measures (n = 3). Evidence for reductions in health care utilization was found in five studies.

CONCLUSION

Although not supported by all studies, our findings suggest that facilitating SDM in the context of lung cancer may lead to improved emotional outcomes and less aggressive therapies. Future studies, explicitly studying the effects of SDM by using decision aids, are needed to better elucidate potential benefits.

Evaluation of decision support tools for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review of literature

Objective

Medical decisions in the context of advanced cancer are more based on patient values and preferences than during the early stages of the disease. The implementation of shared decision-making is particularly important with an oncology palliative care population. However, few decision support tools focus on this population. This literature review aims to identify decision support tools related to palliative care for an oncological population and to assess their quality using International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria.

Method

The tools were identified through PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases; the inventory of tools to assist the decisions of the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; and through the register of Cochrane trials. They were then evaluated using the third version of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument.

Result

Sixteen tools were identified, which targeted five types of cancer and addressed a particular decision or the use of chemotherapy in addition to palliative care. The quality of the reviewed tools varies.

Significance of results

Clinicians can use four decision support tools related to palliative care with an oncology population that meet a certain quality standard. Further studies are needed to develop new decision support tools targeting more types of cancer and decisions.

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review

The consideration of patient preferences in decision-making has become more important, especially for life-threatening diseases such as lung cancer. This paper aims to identify the preferences of lung cancer patients with regard to their treatment and involvement in the decision-making process. We conducted a systematic literature review from 12 electronic databases and included studies published between 2000 and 2012. A total of 20 studies were included in this review. These revealed that lung cancer patients do have preferences that should be considered in treatment decisions; however, these preferences are not homogenous. We found that patients often consider life extension to be more important than the health-related quality of life or undesirable side effects. This preference seems to depend on patient age. Nausea and vomiting are the most important side effects to be avoided; the relevance of other side effects differs highly between subgroups. The majority of lung cancer patients, nevertheless, seem to prefer a passive rather than an active role in decision-making, although the self-reported preferences differed partly from the physicians' perceptions. Overall, we identified an urgent need for larger studies that are suitable for subgroup analyses and incorporate multi-attributive measurement techniques.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility.

FINDINGS

Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Clinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key decisions. Health care delivery organizations should prioritize the use of currently available tools that are evidence based and effective.

Patients' preferences for participation in treatment decision-making at the end of life: qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients

PURPOSE

Patients are often encouraged to participate in treatment decision-making. Most studies on this subject focus on choosing between different curative treatment types. In the last phase of life treatment decisions differ as they often put more emphasis on weighing quantity against quality of life, such as whether or not to start treatment aimed at life prolongation but with the possibility of side effects. This study aimed to obtain insight into cancer patients' preferences and the reasons for patients' preferred role in treatment decision-making at the end of life.

METHODS

28 advanced cancer patients were included at the start of their first line treatment. In-depth interviews were held prior to upcoming treatment decisions whether or not to start a life prolonging treatment. The Control Preference Scale was used to start discussing the extent and type of influence patients wanted to have concerning upcoming treatment decision-making. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed.

RESULTS

All patients wanted their physician to participate in the treatment decision-making process. The extent to which patients themselves preferred to participate seemed to depend on how patients saw their own role or assessed their own capabilities for participating in treatment decision-making. Patients foresaw a shift in the preferred level of participation to a more active role depending in the later phase of illness when life prolongation would become more limited and quality of life would become more important.

CONCLUSION

Patients vary in how much involvement they would like to have in upcoming treatment decision-making. Individual patients' preferences may change in the course of the illness, with a shift to more active participation in the later phases. Communication about patients' expectations, wishes and preferences for participation in upcoming treatment decisions is of great importance. An approach in which these topics are openly discussed would be beneficial.

Offering a Treatment Choice in the Irradiation of Prostate Cancer Leads to Better Informed and More Active Patients, Without Harm to Well-Being

PURPOSE

To examine, in prostate cancer patients, the effect of (1) being offered a choice between radiation doses in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and of (2) accepting or declining the possibility to choose.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 150 patients with localized prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0) were offered a choice with a decision aid between two radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy). A control group of 144 patients received a fixed radiation dose without being offered a choice. Data were collected at baseline (before choice), before treatment (after choice), and 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment completion.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the involvement group, receiving the decision aid, showed increased participation in decision making (p < 0.001), increased knowledge (p < 0.001), and improved risk perception (p < 0.001); they were more satisfied with the quality of information (p = 0.002) and considered their treatment a more appropriate treatment (p = 0.01). No group differences were found in well-being (e.g., general health, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life, anxiety). Within the involvement group, accepting or declining the option to choose did not affect well-being either.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering a choice of radiation dose, with a decision aid, increased involvement in decision making and led to a better-informed patient. In contrast to earlier suggestions, a strong increase in involvement did not result in improved well-being; and in contrast to clinical concerns, well-being was not negatively affected either, not even in those patients who preferred to leave the decision to their physician. This study shows that older patients, such as prostate cancer patients, can be informed and involved in decision making.

Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity

Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids--to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices--is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids--as they have been conceived and operationalized so far--can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

Is there a role for decision aids in cancer-related decisions?

Cancer-related decisions are challenging, requiring patients to evaluate associated medical and psychological outcomes within the context of their personal values. In response, a number of decisional support tools have been developed. Clinical decision aids are decisional support tools designed to facilitate patient-driven decision-making by providing relevant information on the options while eliciting and incorporating patient preferences; they have been designed to support decision-making in the prevention, screening, and treatment of cancer. The development begins with identification of an appropriate clinical problem, followed by needs assessment to determine content and optimal methods of data presentation. Because implementation of a decision aid requires time and financial commitment, its efficacy in improving the quality of patients' decisions must be evaluated. In randomized controlled trials, cancer-related decision aids have been shown to increase patients' knowledge regarding their disease, and may facilitate patients playing a more active role in decision-making. Some studies suggest less decisional conflict and improved satisfaction with decision-making as a result. Whether use of a decision aid impacts the actual decisions made by patients, however, is less evident.

A systematic review of information in decision aids

OBJECTIVE

We completed a systematic review of information reported as included in decision aids (DAs) for adult patients, to determine if it is complete, balanced and accurate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

DAs were identified using the Cochrane Database of DAs and searches of four electronic databases using the terms: 'decision aid'; shared decision making' and 'patients'; 'multimedia or leaflets or pamphlets or videos and patients and decision making'. Additionally, publications reporting DA development and actual DAs that were reported as publicly available on the Internet were consulted. Publications were included up to May 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the following variables: external groups consulted in development of the DA, type of study used, categories of information, inclusion of probabilities, use of citation lists and inclusion of patient experiences.

MAIN RESULTS

68 treatment DAs and 30 screening DAs were identified. 17% of treatment DAs and 47% of screening DAs did not report any external consultation and, of those that did, DA producers tended to rely more heavily on medical experts than on patients' guidance. Content evaluations showed that (i) treatment DAs frequently omit describing the procedure(s) involved in treatment options and (ii) screening DAs frequently focus on false positives but not false negatives. About 1/2 treatment DAs reported probabilities with a greater emphasis on potential benefits than harms. Similarly, screening DAs were more likely to provide false-positive than false-negative rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The review led us to be concerned about completeness, balance and accuracy of information included in DAs.

Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review

Patients with advanced, non-curable cancer face difficult decisions on further treatment, where a small increase in survival time must be balanced against the toxicity of the treatment. If patients want to be involved in these decisions, in keeping with current notions of autonomy and empowerment, they also require to be adequately informed both on the treatments proposed and on their own disease status and prognosis. A systematic review was performed on decision-making and information provision in patients with advanced cancer. Studies of interventions to improve information giving and encourage participation in decision-making were reviewed, including both randomised controlled trials and uncontrolled studies. Almost all patients expressed a desire for full information, but only about two-thirds wished to participate actively in decision-making. Higher educational level, younger age and female sex were predictive of a desire to participate in decision-making. Active decision-making was more common in patients with certain cancers (e.g. breast) than others (e.g. prostate). A number of simple interventions including question prompt sheets, audio-taping of consultations and patient decision aids have been shown to facilitate such involvement.

Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids

Decision aids are tools intended to help patients with decisions about their health-care. We have developed three decision aids to help patients with treatment decisions for: locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), advanced non-small cell lung cancer (A-NSCLC), and early-stage prostate cancer (ES-PC). In developing the aids, we carried out studies to provide them with an empirical basis, and to evaluate their potential for impact. In this paper we report results that challenge common assumptions and typical practice that currently occurs in the development of decision aids. The challenges relate to: how the content of the aid is defined, how the information is presented, how to incorporate decision aids into the dynamic, complex process of making such decisions, and how to evaluate the aids. We conclude that critical appraisal of issues related to the design and implementation of decision aids is required.

Outcomes research related to patient decision making in oncology

For outcomes research, what are the implications of seeing the patient as a decision maker? In the current medical environment, greater emphasis is placed on the role played by the patient in clinical decision making. In the past 2 decades, considerable work has been done to identify and measure decision-related outcomes, including knowledge about the treatment options (risks and benefits), satisfaction, anxiety, decisional conflict, and involvement in the decision process. Attempts to improve these decision-related outcomes involve patient decision aids, which convey patient-specific information and sometimes help patients proceed through an explicit decision-making process. These interventions have produced positive results, especially with respect to improving patient knowledge. Future research is needed to understand which aspects of the interventions work and for what types of patients. Research is also needed to better understand the decision making process of patients who do not use decision aids.